User talk:TheaEskey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheaEskey (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 26 November 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Hatami (July 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There is far too much private personal information which is not supported by an immediate inline citation clearly identifying the source where that information is coming from. Also note that Medium.com, YouTube and RedState are not considered reliable sources. Please ensure that every material statement and anything potentially contentious or sensitive is appropriately supported by reliable published sources (see WP:BLP). --
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TheaEskey! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Hatami (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Hatami (April 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Sourcing seems to be in roughly the right place. However, the phrasing is not quite up to snuff. Stuff like a consistent and vocal advocate is fine in an attributed quote but not ok for WIKIVOICE.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Hatami has been accepted

Jonathan Hatami, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ca talk to me! 12:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Hatami. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the person who I’m deleting is posting poorly sourced content using biased language. He’s sought dispute resolution but I refuse to have it on my page. I suggest you tell him to stop. TheaEskey (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC) TheaEskey (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jonathan Hatami, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 01:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop chiming in where you know nothing. The person has made numerous edits that don’t conform to Wikipedias standard for both sourcing and content. Guess standards don’t matter then…. TheaEskey (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are not legitimate and they have nothing to do with anything. I don’t know anyone named Ted Eskey. TheaEskey (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Jonathan Hatami. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t vandalize anything. It’s just not relevant to anything. Whatever. This is a joke. TheaEskey (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
-- ferret (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TheaEskey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that two accounts somehow being linked caused a problem with Sockpuppeting but I had no idea they were linked.

Accept reason:

I will unblock you except for the Jonathan Hatami article, which I guess ironically you created. You can discuss content and sourcing on Talk:Jonathan Hatami. If further disputes arise, please use WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. The WP:BLPN notice board is available to report content violations of our policies on articles about people who are alive. And that goes for any article. If behavioral issues arise, you can report them at WP:ANI. I will remain available irregularly for answers to questions. (Sunday is my day of rest.) I guess I'll lay on a WP:CTOP alert for AMPOL2. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser here: I'm not opposed to an unblock on the socking issue on its own, and perhaps we can help remove some details from view. However, using two accounts to continue an edit war (The account switch happened after 3RR warning was issued) needs addressed. And, there's a lot more issue going on here with an apparent conflict of interest (WP:COI) and ownership of a BLP (WP:OWN). -- ferret (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I apologize for creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. I assure you there is none. I don’t mind the Santa Clarita race coming in to Jonathan Hatami’s Wikipedia page as long is it sourced by more than a blog post and a YouTube video as those weren’t acceptable sources when I was creating the page per Wikipedia guidelines. As far as BLP ownership I’ve never claimed to own the Jonathan Hatami page, all I’ve asked for is for a consistent standard to be applied from my writing of the article through to the live version about what constitutes acceptable sourcing and neutral language. I hope that helps provide a broader context and understanding for a simple correction to a block that shouldn’t have happened over a simple mistake on my behalf and hopefully can be easily reversed upon review. I promise if I am unblocked it won’t happen again. Also I had zero idea the accounts were linked so it was just an honest mistake. I promise. Not malicious. TheaEskey (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has been deleting every time I add the Santa Clarita City Council section. She's too close to the candidate. She is a bully and said my sources weren't properly cited when they are. They are all legit sites. She is absolutely impossible to work with. Please do not unblock her. Snowcactus0 (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what she has done so far:
Sockpuppetry: She admitted to using multiple accounts, violating the policies on sockpuppetry. This undermines the integrity of the editing process and creates an unfair advantage.
Conflict of Interest: The person has demonstrated a conflict of interest by being deeping involved in Jon Hatami's campaign. She is close friends with Hatami.
Ownership Language: Referring to the page as "her page" suggests a sense of ownership, which goes against Wikipedia's collaborative and communal nature. Wikipedia pages are not owned by individuals but are a shared space for collaborative editing.
Disruptive Editing: The use of sockpuppet accounts and the attempt to control the content of the page through biased editing can be considered disruptive. Wikipedia encourages constructive contributions and discourages behavior that hinders the collaborative editing process.
Therefore, I ask that you please continue blocking her as it would help maintain the principles of neutrality, fairness, and collaboration that are fundamental to Wikipedia's community and content creation process.
Thank you. Snowcactus0 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again she is lying. See the top of my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snowcactus0 where she says: "stop editing MY PAGE...". Thea is a bully who should not be allowed to do so anymore. Snowcactus0 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is not a source, but nice try. I even said that I couldn't link to the Youtube even though it is a video from an official account, and an official forum. Snowcactus0 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not unblock her. She is too close to this page and frankly every source I included is 100% legit.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/04/10/ca/la/vote/hatami_j/bio.html
http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/04/10/ca/la/vote/hatami_j/philosophy.html
https://accountablescv.com/p/from-city-council-to-district-attorney
The reason this info hasn't been more widely known is because THea is a bully and removes all references to it. Apparently they tried to get the cite smartvoter.com to remove his candidate pages. Snowcactus0 (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Popping in from UTRS appeal #81465 to suggest leaving the dead named account blocked. Looks like a WP:PARTIALBLOCK for Jonathan Hatami might be in order. No call on the original content dispute. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DFO waves at @Ferret:. Best regards, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a WP:TBAN for American Politics since 1992 s an unblock condition. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that leaving the old account blocked is appropriate. I've also deleted the sock tag and category as unnecessary for this particular case. Admins can find the information if necessary without it remaining public. A partial block would seem appropriate if Thea agrees with it as a condition. I'm not sure about the broader TBAN from AMPOL 1992, but Thea does need to be made aware of the AMPOL 1992 sanctions. @TheaEskey Please be aware on Wikipedia that "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed" is considered a contentious topic and subject to more severe scrutiny than other areas. That topic area falls under WP:CTOP, our enforcement procedure for such. While I'm here, @Snowcactus0, this is something you have to obey as well. There are no favorites here. If you, Snowcactus0, have any questions about this, you can ask me about it on your user talk. Please stop replying to Thea's talk page, we already know all the details and do not need any clarification from you. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What am I being banned from doing? TheaEskey (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to understand everything so I don’t violate the terms of it.
Also I will reiterate I have no problem with the Santa Clarita city council race coming in. I never had a problem with it. The only reason I had a problem with it is because it’s poorly sourced based on the standards I thought pages were supposed to conform to and the non-neutral language that’s currently employed. If the determination is that it is fine source wise and the language is the issue then I’m happy to abide by that. If sourcing can be improved I’m happy to help. I’m only interested in improving the page. I think I’ve made that clear and I don’t appreciate the continued attacks on my character. I’m not a bully, I’m not best friends with Jonathan Hatami, I didn’t try to get anything removed from smart voter, I’m not deeply involved in the campaign, I’m not paid by the campaign - I just support him. I’m not POV pushing. I don’t appreciate people digging up my personal offline stuff and bringing it to a public forum. I made a mistake which I’m happy to cop to but the continued bad faith attacks need to stop. TheaEskey (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has dug up any offline stuff. It would help if you stop misrepresenting what has happened. As for Snowcactus0, I have already warned them to stop, and if they don't, they'll be blocked. What you're being asked to do if you want unblocked is to agree to remain blocked from the specific article Jonathan Hatami (and not the entire site), as well as acknowledge the AMPOL 92 restrictions. The unblocking admin may ask or enforce a total ban from editing AMPOL 92 at their discretion. If they do so, you're allowed to edit Wikipedia but cannot edit or discuss anything to do with American Politics from 1992 to now. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I’m fine with that. TheaEskey (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge ampol restrictions. TheaEskey (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m ok with the partial ban but I would like to have my talk page remain deleted off Wikipedia. I don’t think I’ll be making any more edits out of an abundance of caution and would like my talk page to remain deleted because it has personal information in it. TheaEskey (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I can’t be vanished due to the partial ban then I would request oversight to purge all my personal identifiable information from the talk page here, from Jonathan Hatami’s talk page and from Snowcactus0’s talk page as I am sincerely worried about potential harassment. TheaEskey (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This proves my point about offline harassment. Please deal with this. TheaEskey (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snowcactus won’t stop harassing me despite repeated warnings from you and if you read the comments they made it just proves what I’ve been saying all along. TheaEskey (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Snowcactus is using offline information to harass me in clear contravention of Wikipedia policy. TheaEskey (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please deal with Snowcactus. TheaEskey (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheaEskey Keep in mind its a US holiday and US administrators are likely busy today, hence the delay. I've removed and hidden Snowcactus' latest comments and blocked them. -- ferret (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TheaEskey (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I hope that this thre@c will have you looking critically at what they posted. It’s clear they have a COI. TheaEskey (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence of a conflict of interest. They might have an opposing viewpoint from you, but in the end they've only sought to include factual details that you yourself admit are true about the candidate. Either way, they're indefinitely blocked, which makes their COI irrelevant at this time. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. When does my partial ban take effect? TheaEskey (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: OK to unblock with conditions? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra Pblock at the least, more at your discretion. -- ferret (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheaEskey: I will unblock you except for the Jonathan Hatami article, which I guess ironically you created. You can discuss content and sourcing on Talk:Jonathan Hatami. If further disputes arise, please use WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. The WP:BLPN notice board is available to report content violations of our policies on articles about people who are alive. And that goes for any article. If behavioral issues arise, you can report them at WP:ANI. I will remain available irregularly for answers to questions. (Sunday is my day of rest.) I guess I'll lay on a WP:CTOP alert for AMPOL2. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheaEskey&oldid=1186974373"